4 ms·

Hey, can't have it both ways! If productivity goes up, and low-productivity jobs get outsourced to developing countries - which, by the way, is probably one of

by dotcoma 16y ago

Hey, can't have it both ways! If productivity goes up, and low-productivity jobs get outsourced to developing countries - which, by the way, is probably one of the reasons productivity goes up in the rich world - of course we will need less working hours to be done. But what should be regarded as a success - and to some extent as neo-colonialism against the world's poor - is seen as a problem. I think this speaks worlds about how backwards and still stuck in a work-and-produce mindset we are...

anamax 16y ago
> If productivity goes up, and low-productivity jobs get outsourced to developing countries - which, by the way, is probably one of the reasons productivity goes up in the rich world - of course we will need less working hours to be done. You're assuming that consumption doesn't go up. If we're paying unemployment benefits, those folks should either be looking full-time or doing public service. Yes, that includes things that might otherwise be done by public employees.
- exit 16y ago
  er, what will the public employees do then?
  - gaius 16y ago
    They will go and work in the private sector, of course. Why should they have "jobs for life"?
    - sokoloff 16y ago
      I agree entirely with your last point, but if the unemployed/unemployable are not finding work in the private sector and are thus doing public works, displacing the current public employees into the private sector seems unlikely to result in them being fully employed/employable as well, right? It's not like the job-for-life public sector folk are the cream of the crop, in aggregate.
    - ugh 16y ago
      In the infinitely big private sector where everyone can get a job except all those you are just forcing to work for the state? If the state needs someone who is unemployed to work for it, it should give her a contract and pay her a wage. You can’t make someone who receives welfare benefits work more than those benefits are worth anyway. That would obviously be unjust. It’s also obvious why it is a big advantage for the state to be able to pick and chose just like the private sector instead of getting random unemployed delivered to its doorstep. There are precious few jobs were no qualifications and no training is needed. It’s also pretty unlikely that there just happens to be the right person with just the right skills around (and if it is I’m not exactly sure why the state shouldn’t hire that person instead of forcing it to work for it). The state would have to pay for training and enforcement, there would be additional unemployed (those the state just fired and replaced with unemployed) who would also receive welfare benefits, you can’t make them work more than they receive – besides being morally questionable there is no way for the state to save any money with this scheme. If you want truly just welfare you should advocate some sort of basic income – a fixed amount of money everyone (no matter how rich or poor) unconditionally receives from the cradle to the grave.
      - gaius 16y ago
        On your last point, it would be cheaper to give every man, woman and child in the UK GBP 3k/year no questions asked, no strings attached than to operate our present system.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > If the state needs someone who is unemployed to work for it, it should give her a contract and pay her a wage. You can’t make someone who receives welfare benefits work more than those benefits are worth anyway. That would obviously be unjust. Unjust? Why should taxpayers pay to have someone do nothing? That person is consuming resources produced by other people. > I’m not exactly sure why the state shouldn’t hire that person instead of forcing it to work for it. There's no force. If said person can get a better deal than a dole check in return for picking up trash, said person is free to take it.
        16y ago
- dotcoma 16y ago
  I'm not assuming that consumption won't go up. I'm hoping it won't go up. Bigger, better, faster can't go on forever. We have this thing called the "economy" and instead of trying to "economize", we want to consume more and more forever... Also, did I speak about unemployment benefits? I think we should try to keep as many people as possible employed, and have them all work fewer hours, whenever it is possible. Obama can't really relax too much, or share his job with another co-President, and of course if you're launching your startup and it's the challenge of your life you have to give it all - but not every job is really that important. To a large extent, the truth is that the world is full of small people who have trouble finding value and joy in their lives and want to "seem important" by working way too many hours (nor does the system help them give up part of their working hours, truth be told).
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I'm not assuming that consumption won't go up. I'm hoping it won't go up. Bigger, better, faster can't go on forever. Doesn't it depend on the goods in question? For example, it's unclear why more digital books would be a bad thing. Same for digital music and maybe even movies.
fauigerzigerk 16y ago
Rising productivity doesn't necessarily mean that working hours go down. Productivity is output per hour worked. So if output goes up and hours worked stay the same, that's a productivity increase. Not sure why you call it neo-colonialism when a country like China builds a lot of factories to make stuff we want to buy. Hundereds of millions of people in these countries are now much wealthier than before. I do know about the harsh working conditions there but apparently they are better than what came before or everybody would just stay in their villages and grow rice. China's lack of democracy and prohibition of trade unions is hardly down to neo-colonialism either.
nanairo 16y ago
I would agree with you, if the benefit were shared by society. But in a country like the USA the cheaper, more efficient outsourced productivity helps those who own the companies, and the managers of the company. On the other hand, those who've been fired see very little of that money, and hence suffer the most.

by dotcoma 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> If productivity goes up, and low-productivity jobs get outsourced to developing countries - which, by the way, is probably one of the reasons productivity goes up in the rich world - of course we will need less working hours to be done. You're assuming that consumption doesn't go up. If we're paying unemployment benefits, those folks should either be looking full-time or doing public service. Yes, that includes things that might otherwise be done by public employees.

exit 16y ago
er, what will the public employees do then?
- gaius 16y ago
  They will go and work in the private sector, of course. Why should they have "jobs for life"?
  - sokoloff 16y ago
    I agree entirely with your last point, but if the unemployed/unemployable are not finding work in the private sector and are thus doing public works, displacing the current public employees into the private sector seems unlikely to result in them being fully employed/employable as well, right? It's not like the job-for-life public sector folk are the cream of the crop, in aggregate.
  - ugh 16y ago
    In the infinitely big private sector where everyone can get a job except all those you are just forcing to work for the state? If the state needs someone who is unemployed to work for it, it should give her a contract and pay her a wage. You can’t make someone who receives welfare benefits work more than those benefits are worth anyway. That would obviously be unjust. It’s also obvious why it is a big advantage for the state to be able to pick and chose just like the private sector instead of getting random unemployed delivered to its doorstep. There are precious few jobs were no qualifications and no training is needed. It’s also pretty unlikely that there just happens to be the right person with just the right skills around (and if it is I’m not exactly sure why the state shouldn’t hire that person instead of forcing it to work for it). The state would have to pay for training and enforcement, there would be additional unemployed (those the state just fired and replaced with unemployed) who would also receive welfare benefits, you can’t make them work more than they receive – besides being morally questionable there is no way for the state to save any money with this scheme. If you want truly just welfare you should advocate some sort of basic income – a fixed amount of money everyone (no matter how rich or poor) unconditionally receives from the cradle to the grave.
    - gaius 16y ago
      On your last point, it would be cheaper to give every man, woman and child in the UK GBP 3k/year no questions asked, no strings attached than to operate our present system.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > If the state needs someone who is unemployed to work for it, it should give her a contract and pay her a wage. You can’t make someone who receives welfare benefits work more than those benefits are worth anyway. That would obviously be unjust. Unjust? Why should taxpayers pay to have someone do nothing? That person is consuming resources produced by other people. > I’m not exactly sure why the state shouldn’t hire that person instead of forcing it to work for it. There's no force. If said person can get a better deal than a dole check in return for picking up trash, said person is free to take it.
      - 16y ago
dotcoma 16y ago
I'm not assuming that consumption won't go up. I'm hoping it won't go up. Bigger, better, faster can't go on forever. We have this thing called the "economy" and instead of trying to "economize", we want to consume more and more forever... Also, did I speak about unemployment benefits? I think we should try to keep as many people as possible employed, and have them all work fewer hours, whenever it is possible. Obama can't really relax too much, or share his job with another co-President, and of course if you're launching your startup and it's the challenge of your life you have to give it all - but not every job is really that important. To a large extent, the truth is that the world is full of small people who have trouble finding value and joy in their lives and want to "seem important" by working way too many hours (nor does the system help them give up part of their working hours, truth be told).
- anamax 16y ago
  > I'm not assuming that consumption won't go up. I'm hoping it won't go up. Bigger, better, faster can't go on forever. Doesn't it depend on the goods in question? For example, it's unclear why more digital books would be a bad thing. Same for digital music and maybe even movies.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

Rising productivity doesn't necessarily mean that working hours go down. Productivity is output per hour worked. So if output goes up and hours worked stay the same, that's a productivity increase. Not sure why you call it neo-colonialism when a country like China builds a lot of factories to make stuff we want to buy. Hundereds of millions of people in these countries are now much wealthier than before. I do know about the harsh working conditions there but apparently they are better than what came before or everybody would just stay in their villages and grow rice. China's lack of democracy and prohibition of trade unions is hardly down to neo-colonialism either.

nanairo 16y ago

I would agree with you, if the benefit were shared by society. But in a country like the USA the cheaper, more efficient outsourced productivity helps those who own the companies, and the managers of the company. On the other hand, those who've been fired see very little of that money, and hence suffer the most.